• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Cocaine and Heroin be legalized along with Marijuana?

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
Proponents of the legalization of marijuana argue that "if most drugs were legalized, this would decrese crime." the problem with that line of thinking is, even if such were true you would have a problem with the medical aspect of the legalization of such drugs. For example let us look at the following drugs: Cocaine and Heroin

Physiological Effects of Cocaine

Cocaine produces its powerful high by acting on the brain. But as cocaine travels through the blood, it affects the whole body.

Cocaine is responsible for more U.S. emergency room visits than any other illegal drug. Cocaine harms the brain, heart, blood vessels, and lungs -- and can even cause sudden death. Here's what happens in the body:
  • Heart. Cocaine is bad for the heart. Cocaine increases heart rate and blood pressure while constricting the arteries supplying blood to the heart. The result can be a heart attack, even in young people without heart disease. Cocaine can also trigger a deadly abnormal heart rhythm called arrhythmia, killing instantly.
  • Brain. Cocaine can constrict blood vessels in the brain, causing strokes. This can happen even in young people without other risk factors for strokes. Cocaine causes seizures and can lead to bizarre or violent behavior.
  • Lungs and respiratory system. Snorting cocaine damages the nose and sinuses. Regular use can cause nasal perforation. Smoking crack cocaine irritates the lungs and, in some people, causes permanent lung damage.
  • Gastrointestinal tract. Cocaine constricts blood vessels supplying the gut. The resulting oxygen starvation can cause ulcers, or even perforation of the stomach or intestines.
  • Kidneys. Cocaine can cause sudden, overwhelming kidney failure through a process called rhabdomyolysis. In people with high blood pressure, regular cocaine use can accelerate the long-term kidney damage caused by high blood pressure.
Source: Cocaine Use and Its Effects

Heroin use, also has its negative effects:

Heroin enters the brain, where it is converted to morphine and binds to receptors known as opioid receptors. These receptors are located in many areas of the brain (and in the body), especially those involved in the perception of pain and in reward. Opioid receptors are also located in the brain stem—important for automatic processes critical for life, such as breathing (respiration), blood pressure, and arousal. Heroin overdoses frequently involve a suppression of respiration.
After an intravenous injection of heroin, users report feeling a surge of euphoria (“rush”) accompanied by dry mouth, a warm flushing of the skin, heaviness of the extremities, and clouded mental functioning. Following this initial euphoria, the user goes “on the nod,” an alternately wakeful and drowsy state. Users who do not inject the drug may not experience the initial rush, but other effects are the same.
With regular heroin use, tolerance develops, in which the user’s physiological (and psychological) response to the drug decreases, and more heroin is needed to achieve the same intensity of effect. Heroin users are at high risk for addiction—it is estimated that about 23 percent of individuals who use heroin become dependent on it.

Source: Heroin - InfoFacts - NIDA

Aside from marijuana, why should these drugs be legalized and how would you explain the issues with medical issurance as a result to the legalization of these drugs?

Note: I mentioned medical insurance because I theorize that the legalization of these "hardcore drugs" would also increase in-patient care in hospitals due to an exponential increase in usage and abuse. To give you an idea please see the following chart:

What is the scope of cocaine use in the United States?Dependence or Abuse of Specific Substances among Past Year Users of Substances: 2002

fig8.2
The percentage of youths aged 12 to 17 who had ever used cocaine increased slightly from 2001 to 2002 (2.3 to 2.7 percent). Among young adults aged 18 to 25, the rate increased slightly from 14.9 percent in 2001 to 15.4 percent in 2002
 
Last edited:

Otherright

Otherright
No, they shouldn't. Heroine and cocaine are far more dangerous than marijuana. Marijuana, on the other hand, isn't a manufactured drug either. It requires no processing. Its non-addictive, something that can't be said even for alcohol. I think its almost harmless.
 

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
No, they shouldn't. Heroine and cocaine are far more dangerous than marijuana. Marijuana, on the other hand, isn't a manufactured drug either. It requires no processing. Its non-addictive, something that can't be said even for alcohol. I think its almost harmless.

Well cocaine if in powdered form is not entirely processed.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Proponents of the legalization of marijuana argue that "if most drugs were legalized, this would decrese crime."
All of them? Most of them? Half of them? Many of them? Some of them? A few of them? A couple of them? While legalizing any prohibited item would decrease the crime surrounding it---Duh! :facepalm: ---I doubt many proponents of legalizing pot would use such a stupid argument. I also doubt many want to see drugs like cocaine and heroine legalized. Of course if you've got evidence of some sort it would be interesting to see it.
 

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
All of them? Most of them? Half of them? Many of them? Some of them? A few of them? A couple of them? While legalizing any prohibited item would decrease the crime surrounding it---Duh! :facepalm: ---I doubt many proponents of legalizing pot would use such a stupid argument. I also doubt many want to see drugs like cocaine and heroine legalized. Of course if you've got evidence of some sort it would be interesting to see it.

Upon asking the question "Should cocaine and heroin be legalized?" the following was a response to me

Posted by Acim:

"Seems a tad off topic, but I'll say yes, with stipulation of greater control among suppliers and as much education as humanly possible before age of say 18. Again, not only the "scared straight" kind either. I truly believe demand for these substances would go down, over time, if the underground / coolness factor was taken down a few notches, not to mention complement of honest education.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
No, they shouldn't. Heroine and cocaine are far more dangerous than marijuana. Marijuana, on the other hand, isn't a manufactured drug either.

Why is that relevant, other than making it harder to control? Snake venom isn't manufactured either.



It requires no processing. Its non-addictive, something that can't be said even for alcohol. I think its almost harmless.

It can't be said for Marijuana either. Legends aside, it is addictive and dangerous in its own way - even if, granted, it doesn't really compare to cocaine or even alcohol.

About the OP's question: no, and MJ isn't to be legalized either. I would much rather see alcohol be restricted.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I doubt many proponents of legalizing pot would use such a stupid argument. I also doubt many want to see drugs like cocaine and heroine legalized.

Unfortunately you are wrong on both counts. Particularly the first, incredible as it seems.
 

HiddenDjinn

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
I think Marijuana should take its place beside other controlled substances, to be used only under direct medical supervision, when/if a doctor determines it needed. That's how cocaine is legally dispensed, as well as morphine.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Unfortunately you are wrong on both counts. Particularly the first, incredible as it seems.
Not being a pot smoker or hanging around with those who do, I have no first hand knowledge of how they typically think, therefore my opinion is an uninformed one. So perhaps they are so stupid as to come up with such an argument, I simply wouldn't have thought so.
 
Criminalising people should be avoided where possible, particually when people with drug abuse problems already have enough on their plate without going to jail. Its no suprise that many people in UK prisons have drug and mental health problems, two things that often go together.

Efforts should be made to control access to dangerous drugs and educate the general public to assist them in making informed decisions.

There will always be some people who end up addicted to harmful drugs. There isn't really much we can do about this.
 

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
Criminalising people should be avoided where possible, particually when people with drug abuse problems already have enough on their plate without going to jail. Its no suprise that many people in UK prisons have drug and mental health problems, two things that often go together.

Efforts should be made to control access to dangerous drugs and educate the general public to assist them in making informed decisions.

There will always be some people who end up addicted to harmful drugs. There isn't really much we can do about this.

I disagree. I believe criminaling these drugs needs to be harsh. Ever seen the movie "jungle fever?" Even though the movie was about interracial dating there are several scenes played by Samuel L. Jackson as a crack head who always begs his brother and mother for money for his fix. These individuals are real. These individuals cause harm and need a deterrent to help them stop abusing drugs. I am most certaintly not concerned with "what is on their plate" and neither should society be.

Just because someone will always be addicted doesn't mean we should stop efforts to help them. These drugs not only harm the body but also breaks families up. In the hospital I have seen it first hand. Drug addicts who being homeless check in the hospital "fake being crazy" just to get an Ativan shot, which is an anti-anxiolytic which has a calming effect (but also in some patients has a euphoric effect)
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I believe criminaling these drugs needs to be harsh. Ever seen the movie "jungle fever?" Even though the movie was about interracial dating there are several scenes played by Samuel L. Jackson as a crack head who always begs his brother and mother for money for his fix. These individuals are real. These individuals cause harm and need a deterrent to help them stop abusing drugs. I am most certaintly not concerned with "what is on their plate" and neither should society be.

Just because someone will always be addicted doesn't mean we should stop efforts to help them. These drugs not only harm the body but also breaks families up. In the hospital I have seen it first hand. Drug addicts who being homeless check in the hospital "fake being crazy" just to get an Ativan shot, which is an anti-anxiolytic which has a calming effect (but also in some patients has a euphoric effect)

Stiring rhetoric but the reality is that threats of punishment are inneffective. As I've already said UK prisons are full of people with drug and mental health problems and putting them in jail does very little to address either and often just makes things worse. Criminalising people is not going to accomplish anything except keep prisons filled.

These people need support to manage their drug addiction, learn or relearn life skills and work towards the goal of living a normal life. This requires people who are able to build trusting relationships with addicts, who can empathise and have the patience to see the process through to the end irrespective of setbacks.

My government is peddling a similar rhetoric against those on benefits. They seem to think that threats of reduced benefit will magically result in people getting into work. What they don't realise is that these people aren't just copies of themselves who don't want to work. Often they are 2nd or 3rd generation unemployed with little in the way of the life skills needed to live independently and hold down a job. Reducing their benefits will just put them into poverty and even make them homeless. As with addicts they need support and tutoring to become productive members of society.

I did not say that we should give up helping people. I said that there will always be drug addicts irrespective of what we do.
 
Last edited:

Yerda

Veteran Member
Decriminalising these substances would go aong way to minimalising the harms that are synonymous with their use.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Unfortunately you are wrong on both counts. Particularly the first, incredible as it seems.
The claim that crime rates drop when illegal substances are decriminalised? I see it often, and I find it to be fairly compelling.
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
Cocaine isn't even in league with alcohol if you look at the number of fatalities or addictions per user sample. Cocaine isn't even that addictive of a substance in comparison. It's mostly a psychological withdrawal compared to benzos, alcohol, and heroin.

Anyone who drinks but is a critical of cocaine (or weed, shrooms, acid, ecstasy, mescaline, etc.) is being a hypocrite.

I think the better question would be heroin and meth

Compare:
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/drugmort.htm
 
Last edited:

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
I think it these two substances, as well as MDMA, were regulated they would be more predictable like most pharmaceutical grade medicines, which would effect the safety and dose, hence overdose and addiction.
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
As for Cannabis.
I think it's safer than alcohol and don't see why I'm not free to enjoy it safely and responsibly.
As well I feel I ought to be able to grow a couple of plants for my own use, which would only literally a plant a year depending on yield of a typical plant.
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
I think it these two substances, as well as MDMA, were regulated they would be more predictable like most pharmaceutical grade medicines, which would effect the safety and dose, hence overdose and addiction.

No doubt. A lot of complications that arise from MDMA and other amphetamines especially have to do with the fact to cut a profit drug lords and clandestine chemists put cheaper chemicals like meth into their mix.

And because the quality of cocaine varies so much, people don't know the purity of their product until they try it. I won't incriminate myself, but 50 mg of PURE or almost pure cocaine will knock you off your feet. If it's adulterated, 50 mg will feel like a coffee rush. The same is true for heroin [except substitute coffee for oxy]. A lot of heroin overdoses are a result of the black market's irregularities, not the actual drug.

The very same thing happened during Prohibition. The law kills people more than the actual drugs. We have people who overdose on caffeine pills. I wonder how many people, however, would die in a year's time if the government banned that drug?
 
Last edited:
Top